After the legal weed drama came a classic Jersey power fight featuring, yes, backroom deals

Posted Nov 27, 2018

New Jersey voters may be asked next November to approve a constitutional amendment to overhaul how the state draws its legislative districts. The plan has drawn controversy. (Saed Hindash | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com)

Just as a five-hour marathon public hearing on legalizing marijuana in New Jersey came to a close Monday, a separate, nearly four-hour drama began to unfold at the Statehouse in Trenton.

It was over a controversial proposal that Democratic lawmakers have resurrected asking voters to approve an amendment to the state constitution that would overhaul how New Jersey draws its legislative districts.

Sponsors say the change would make the process fairer. Critics warn it would insert a new formula into the constitution that would ensure Democrats keep control of the state Legislature for decades.

A slightly watered-down version of the proposal advanced out of a state Senate committee Monday night, fast-tracked on the first day after Thanksgiving weekend.

But not before Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy defied members of his own party by voicing opposition to it earlier in the day.

Not before lawmakers made multiple changes in backroom meetings (yep, there really is a back room) and continued to make alterations even after some votes were tallied.

Not before Republicans, academics, and advocates continued to cry foul.

And not before a woman in the sparse audience yelled that Democrats should be "ashamed" of themselves.

In other words, it was one of those classic nights for Jersey power politics.

The proposal -- which stalled three years ago -- would place a question on next November's ballot asking voters to approve changes to the process governing how a commission redraws districts determining seats in the Legislature every 10 years.

The most controversial change would impose a "fairness formula" in so-called "competitive" districts based on the results of statewide elections -- for president, U.S. Senate, and governor -- the last 10 years.

But that would likely benefit Democrats because there are 900,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in the state.

Some insiders also say Democratic legislative leaders are using the plan to diminish the power of state Democratic Party Chairman John Currie -- and, in turn, Murphy, who is an ally of Currie. Democratic legislative leaders often clash with the two men.

The plan would reduce the number of redistricting commission members that Currie currently can appoint and place them in the hands of top lawmakers instead.

Hours before the vote, at a Trenton news conference Monday morning, Murphy was asked what he thought of the plan.

"I'm not a buyer of it," the governor said.

"I'm a proud Democrat," he added. "But I'm also a believer in democracy and opening up democracy and transparency and good processes of government in getting to the right solutions. And I don't think this meets those tests."

Murphy also said the plan "popped up" right around Thanksgiving and was now being rushed through at the end of the year.

"Happy Thanksgiving, by the way, everyone," he quipped.

State Senate President Stephen Sweeney, D-Gloucester, stressed the plan would simply make legislative districts more fair because it reflects the will of the voters by drawing districts based on how they vote. He noted this benefits Democrats now.

"That doesn't mean the pendulum can't swing back and there be more Republicans at some point," Sweeney told NJ Advance Media.

Murphy has only so much say. Because it's a constitutional amendment, the proposal needs only the approval of the state Senate and Assembly to come before voters.

Shortly after the marijuana vote ended around 4 p.m., top Senate lawmakers gathered in a back room to discuss amendments to the plan.

They emerged two hours later. The crowd that packed the committee room for the pot hearing was mostly gone by then.

One key amendment reworded the public question to be more clear about how the districts would be drawn.

"This is not about political agendas," said state Sen. Paul Sarlo, D-Bergen, the budget committee chairman.

A top critic of the plan, Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth Polling Institute, said he "softened his stance" thanks to some of the alterations.

But Murray said he remained strongly against amending the state constitution in a way that "would lead to an outcome to further erode the public's trust."

Helen Kioukis, an official with the League of Women Voters of New Jersey, called the plan "undemocratic."

"Voters should be choosing their politicians -- not the other way around," Kioukis told the committee.

David Pringle, an environmentalist with Clean Water Action, said it was "very difficult to see this as anything but a naked power grab" by Democrats.

Republicans on the committee attempted to introduce a nonpartisan plan of their own. But it was quickly quashed by the Democrats who outnumber them on the panel.

The committee approved the amended proposal around 7 p.m. by an 8-5 vote, along party lines. But the top Republican in the Senate, Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr., protested.

Kean, R-Union, said some lawmakers couldn't consider amendments that were added because they had already voted and left the building.

Sarlo, the committee chair, gathered with his fellow Democrats and legislative officials in the corner.

In the end, Sarlo said the vote would stand. But, he said, Sweeney would introduce a similar yet separate "backstop measure" to clear up the matter.

Sarlo added that before the full Senate and Assembly vote on the proposal, there will be a public hearing sometime in the coming weeks.